Miller v. Miranda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Elena Biete Leones Vda. de Miller filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Rolando B. Miranda for disbarment. The complaint stemmed from the respondent's alleged act of submitting an altered Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in an ejectment case. The original SPA, notarized by respondent, authorized a certain Corazon P. Manansala to represent Clarita Rodriguez Magbuhos regarding a "cash loan extended to one Nestor Cabais." However, the MTCC noted that Manansala's authority pertained to the loan and not the ejectment case. Subsequently, an "altered SPA" was submitted, which contained handwritten insertions and alterations, including enclosing the loan phrase in parentheses and inserting a description of property, without Magbuhos's initials or counter-signatures. Procedural History: The MTCC denied the admission of the altered SPA, ruling that Manansala lacked authority to represent Magbuhos in the ejectment case. The court found that the handwritten insertions were made after notarization and without Magbuhos's consent, and that the original notarized document pertained only to the loan transaction. The complainant argued that the respondent's act of submitting an altered and/or falsified document, which he himself notarized, was immoral, improper, and unlawful. The Petition: The respondent defended himself by claiming the alterations were due to "honest mistake or oversight." He explained that he asked his secretary to print a similar document from his files, instructed her to insert corrections, and then had it re-typed and re-printed. He admitted he did not proofread the re-printed SPA before notarizing it. He also claimed that upon discovering the error, he informed Magbuhos, who verbally authorized him to make the necessary corrections. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found the respondent administratively liable and recommended suspension and disqualification as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty to a six-month suspension, immediate revocation of his notarial commission, and a one-year disqualification from being a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Rolando B. Miranda should be held administratively liable for submitting an altered Special Power of Attorney (SPA) which he had notarized, and whether this constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the respondent's actions constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice, specifically regarding the duty and responsibilities of a notary public.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Rolando B. Miranda GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year; his incumbent notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED; and he is PROHIBITED from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years, effective immediately, with a STERN WARNING against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of the respondent for submitting an altered SPA and violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1: The Court held that the respondent's failure to carefully double-check the draft SPA prepared by his secretary led him to notarize a document that did not reflect his client's true intent. His attempt to shift blame to his secretary was not condoned. Furthermore, the respondent himself caused the intercalation of the notarized SPA by inserting handwritten alterations that changed its meaning, thereby violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. His assertion of verbal authorization from Magbuhos to alter the SPA, absent competent proof, was deemed self-serving and lacked credence. On the respondent's violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules on Notarial Practice: A notary public is empowered to perform notarial acts, such as acknowledgement and affirmation, and must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal. Notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its genuineness and due execution. Therefore, notarization should not be treated as a routinary act; a notary public must exercise carefulness and faithfulness, inform themselves of the facts they certify, and not participate in illegal transactions. The Court concluded that the respondent's acts not only caused damage to those affected but also tainted the integrity of the legal profession by degrading the function of notarization, thus warranting liability both as a notary public and as a lawyer.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must exercise utmost care in performing notarial duties, as notarization converts a private document into a public instrument, and any dereliction of duty undermines public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. A lawyer who notarizes a document that does not reflect the true intent of the client, or who allows alterations to be made after notarization without proper procedure, is liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.